In the aftermath of the Filner resignation, a group of Democratic Party insiders and money people are continuing to run around with their hair on fire trying to anoint Nathan Fletcher as our savior and discourage other truly progressive candidates from entering the field.

Of course this includes folks like Christine Forrester, who runs a marketing consulting firm that connects businesses with hedge fund money, and former Labor Council leader Lorena Gonzalez, who has long been championing her personal friend, the former Assemblyman with an 18% labor voting record over the vociferous objections of many in labor.

Indeed, anyone who has been closely following the inside moves behind the curtain of the Filner scandal knows that the backroom meetings and fundraising efforts designed to put the fix in for Fletcher began simultaneously with the press conferences that kicked off our month-long three ring circus.

Let me be clear, Filner certainly opened the door for them with his bad behavior but they didn’t waste a second rushing in to ensure his quick political demise and Fletcher’s ascendancy. It’s not a conspiracy; it’s just inside game politics and Machiavellian opportunism at its worst by Democratic power brokers and moneyed interests who want to fix the game before any of us get to play.

To critics, who point out that Fletcher’s actual record on issues is bad from a progressive perspective, the tack will immediately shift to the need to prevent Carl DeMaio from becoming wanker in chief . Fletcher, with his corporate connections that include Irwin Jacobs’: big pockets can quickly pick up a couple million and save us from Carl’s impending reign of terror.

Of course, as of this writing, it’s not yet official whether DeMaio is in the race, but it is the specter of his potential rule that many are invoking to encourage Democrats to ignore Fletcher’s horrible record and utter lack of core principles.

But before we panic and dismiss the possibility of backing a genuine progressive who might actually continue the populist policy agenda that San Diegans voted for last fall, let’s take a hard look at who Nathan Fletcher actually is . As anyone who has followed this column knows, I have written fairly extensively about Fletcher’s various efforts to repackage himself during the mayoral primary.

Today I’ll follow a different path and allow Fletcher to speak for himself.

Thus for your reading pleasure, I’ve compiled the collected works of Nathan Fletcher, and I humbly submit that a fitting title for this esteemed document be: Our Savior Nathan Fletcher, the Magic Democrat: “There Are No Two Ways About It, Losing Sucks.”

Prepare to be inspired, dear reader.

1) Nathan Fletcher asking for the endorsement of the Republican Party before the San Diego mayoral primary election in early March, 2012:

Thank you for having me. I’ve been a Republican my entire life, which is telling because I came out of a Democratic household. When I was a child, I represent a generation who’s first president we remember was President Reagan, who very clearly and succinctly outlined the difference between the candidates, between being an individualist and a collectivist, and that basic American dream is we have the power if left to our own devices to achieve greatness. We don’t need government to do it for us, we need it to stay out of the way.

I applied this at an early age. As a teenager I walked door to door. I spent summers in college sitting outside Home Depots registering voters. I worked on campaigns where I slept in headquarters. I went months without pay because I wanted the money to go to the cause. I organized African American ministers behind education reform and school vouchers. I was the Political Director of the California Republican Party where we gave more money and support to our grassroots causes and our county parties than at any point in our history, because I believe in that effort. I traveled around the country teaching youth outreach and voter registration at the request of the National Party.

Then I went abroad to promote our principles and ideas in East Timor and Cambodia and Serbia. And time and again I’ve demonstrated commitment to our cause as a team player.

In 2001, things changed. Our country was attacked and I was asked to serve in a different way and I spent a period of time from 2002 to 2006 defending not only the principles of our Party but the principles of our country. I served in Iraq, in Fallujah and Ramadi and Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle, on the Somali border and in Yemen. I witnessed the great pain of loss and terrible sacrifice of close friends of mine and family members who believed in these causes.

When I came back I wanted to continue to serve. I ran for the legislature where I’ve stood shoulder to shoulder to make the tough decisions. We’ve taken protests in our office where we had 20, 30 cops there because we refused to raise taxes. We’ve got mailings dropped across our district. When the Democrats said, “Alright, if you won’t vote for taxes we’ll put up an all-cuts budget,” I stood and voted for an all-cuts budget, not one that reduced welfare but one that eliminated it because we had to take a stand. When we had to vote to eliminate SB 400, the most egregious pension bill at the state that ever passed, I not only voted for it, I was the whip to go get other Republicans who weren’t inclined to stand up to do it.

(Note: the “protest” he’s talking about here was an action by community college students and teachers at his office taking him to task for failing to vote for a single revenue increase to help higher education. Fletcher freaked out and called in an army of cops to monitor a group of about 50 students, teachers, and faith leaders. He actually organized a counter event of Republican supporters who verbally assailed the students after Fletcher’s dog and pony show was over).

Time and again I’ve demonstrated that, but I’ve also shown that, consistent with your principles, if you articulate it the right way you can bring people together to get good things done, like we did with Chelsea’s Law, with regulatory reform, with pension transparency and other measures.

And as your Mayor, I’ll do the same. I’ve taken the tough positions. I opposed Proposition D, I support the Comprehensive Pension Reform, I support the ban on Project Labor Agreements, I support the outsourcing of City services. But as your Mayor, I will also make sure our principles are translated into achievable action items that get done, because it’s not enough to have ideas, you’ve got to be able to turn them into reality to positively impact people’s lives.

One charge that’s been made this week, the only one I think that’s been accurate, is that I didn’t work as hard for this endorsement as others did. And that’s because I’ve been torn between what is in my best interest and what is in the best interest of this Party. And I’d be honored to have your endorsement, but I see a greater purpose and good that says, let’s unite behind the City Council candidates, between passing Pension Reform, between our other causes. And at some point being part of a team means you have to care more about the team than your individual ambitions. If this Party chooses to endorse, I’d be honored to be your endorsed candidate. If you choose not to endorse, I’ll be honored to join our team either as a member or as a nominee for Mayor after the primary as we defeat Bob Filner and as we get our city back on track.

I’ve lived our principles. I am the American Dream. I grew up in a blue-collar family, the first to go to college. I am a reflection of that which is what’s great about us, that ability that anyone can achieve success. I’ve lived our principles as a Party. I’ve defended our principles as a Party as a Marine in combat. I’ve fought for our principles as a legislator, and if elected Mayor, I will take our principles and I will turn them into action as we move our city forward.

I am very proud to have a long and committed track record with this Party and with this cause. I’m very proud to have stood with you for years, going back to the early days, walking door to door, registering voters. As a legislator I’ve raised and given more than a quarter of a million dollars to our candidates and causes, and will do the same.

Thank you very, very much for all that you do every day to make our Party great. Thank you for allowing me to be a member of this group and for participating in today’s process. I appreciate it. Thank you.

***Note: 17 days later he became an Independent.

2) Nathan Fletcher talking to the San Diego Union-Tribune about his decision to become an Independent in April 2012:

Well I think you’ve got to go and look at what I actually said. And what I said is that I’m rejecting the partisan environment of today. People say “well did you ever consider becoming a Democrat.” I didn’t. Because I think there’s unwillingness on that side as well to step out and solve problems, whether we’re talking about pensions or managed competition or some of these other types of issues.

And the other thing is that there’s not one position of mine that’s changed. There’s not one issue that’s changed. There’s not one principle that’s changed. The only thing that’s changed is the party label. And folks that have a tremendous amount of consternation in the move, it’s more of an adherence to that label than to what I represent and what I’ve been. I’m the exact same person today as I was yesterday as I was the day before. Many folks have struggled with this point and say things like “But he’s still a Republican! His wife worked for George W. Bush!”

***Once this maneuver failed and Fletcher did not make it out of the mayoral primary, he began to reinvent himself, with the unfailing help of his close friend, Lorena Gonzalez, as a “pro-labor” Democrat and eventually announced his change from Independent to Democrat without ever having to take a single vote or make any real political decisions other than that it might be easier for him to win a future race for office as a Democrat. See Fletcher’s voting record when it actually mattered below.

3) Nathan Fletcher on becoming a Democrat on May 4th, 2013:

I wanted to share with you an email I sent out to my donors and supporters this morning:

Ralph Waldo Emerson had a famous saying, “Life is a journey not a destination.”

For me, the last couple years have been quite a journey—going to war, serving in the State Assembly, campaigning for Mayor and now teaching and working in the private sector. You were a part of that journey as a friend and supporter. I appreciate your faith in me more than you will ever know. You hung with me when people said we had no chance of winning and then when every campaign was working overtime to make sure we didn’t. And you were patient with me in the aftermath of losing. There are no two ways about it—losing sucks. But time and distance have a remarkable way of providing clarity and perspective.

The last year has provided me a lot of time to reflect and I wanted to share with you a change I recently made. I joined the Democratic Party.

I was reluctant to make this move. It wasn’t due to any doubt about where I belong. It was simple dread over the criticism I would face. I know this is the party that reflects my values and beliefs, but I was reluctant to admit it. No one likes to be criticized. We all want to be liked. After I left the Republican Party, some compared it to me leaving a wounded Marine on the field of battle. There isn’t a single day that goes by that I don’t think about my relatives and friends who died in war or how hard we worked to save soldiers wounded in combat. It is embarrassing, but I still cry when I meet the mother of a solider who was killed. Could people be so jaded to not see the difference between that and the politics of political parties? I think I’ve got pretty thick skin, but to be perfectly candid I didn’t want to go through it again.

Adding to that is the simple fact that life is good right now. I take my son to school, coach tee ball, surf with my friends and feel like I actually have a life. I love my work at Qualcomm and UCSD. I’m not sure I have ever been happier. I don’t know if I will run for office again, but have no plans to do so now. But I knew a change in party registration would immediately trigger a wave of “what is he angling for now”. And frankly, I didn’t want to deal with that either.

So why am I emailing you? Why now?

It is because of a conversation near the 10th Anniversary of the invasion of Iraq with someone who knows me better than almost anyone else, Lou Orozco. Lou and I served together as Marines in Iraq. We lived together, trained together, deployed together, and remain the closest of friends. After reminiscing about 130 degree Iraq heat, a couple funny and one or two sad stories our conversation turned to family, daily life and eventually politics.

Lou asked if I missed the Republican Party. I was honest—I didn’t miss it one bit. Then he asked how independent was working out for me. Again, brutal honesty–it didn’t fit. It felt empty.

I shared with him a conversation I’d had early this year with a Member of Parliament from Myanmar who I was helping train for his new role as a lawmaker. He had “googled” me (the surest sign of an open society) and read about my becoming an independent. His reaction was blunt: “It doesn’t mean anything. It conveys no values.” He is a member of the National League of Democracy, the minority party that is led by Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi. He went on to tell me that parties are imperfect, sometimes frustrating, but they reflect values, organize like-minded people, and help govern societies. In America, our elected officials wear lapel pins signifying membership in Congress or the state legislature. But in Myanmar, they wear a party pin. This gentleman removed his NLD party pin and gave it to me. Until I figured things out, he said, I could be in his party.

Here I was getting advice from a man I had traveled 8,000 miles to advise. His observation seemed obvious—true in any country or language and I knew he was right.

I told Lou that, during my year without any party affiliation, I’d had time to reflect on my values and principles and where they fit best. My votes and positions, candidates I endorsed and voted for had been in line with the Democratic Party. I told him I’d watched President Bill Clinton’s speech at the Democratic National Convention three times trying to find something I disagreed with. I couldn’t. It was clear – at least to me – that I was a Democrat

(NOTE: See Fletcher’s two previous proclamations above).

I explained to Lou that because I grew up in a working class blue-collar Democratic family I was often asked why I was a Republican. It was because I thought their policies provided the best access to the American Dream. I no longer believe that is true. In my opinion, the GOP today is more focused on protecting those who have already achieved the American Dream than allowing others access to it.

(Note that Fletcher toed the Grover Norquist line his entire elected career).

I believe in the amazing opportunity available to us here in America. What unites us is the fundamental belief that there is nothing you can’t accomplish if you work hard, play by the rules, are willing to fail and start all over. That has been the path towards the American Dream for generations. But believing it requires a real commitment to ensuring that opportunity exists for everyone.

That means ensuring all children can access a quality education, afford college, and ensuring a strong middle class that the poor can not only aspire to reach but have a realistic shot at joining. It means working to create and protect the jobs that grow our economy. Access to American Dream means real solutions on issues like immigration and healthcare. It means that all people regardless of their race, gender or sexual orientation enjoy equal rights and equal treatment. We should all be working towards a future that is inclusive, safe and free that creates opportunity and prosperity for every citizen. For me, that is the goal of a more perfect union.

Those values and principles haven’t changed, but I believe the Democratic Party will better make them a reality for people.

Lou wasn’t judgmental or surprised. This friend who has known me for years and well before any political career said he never understood why I was a Republican in the first place. He laughed when I told him a lot of local Republicans shared his thoughts.

He then nonchalantly said, “So be a Democrat. That’s who you are.” I told him about the criticism I would face. People would question my loyalty and say that I don’t stand for anything. I would feel like I let people down. I just didn’t want to go through it.

He reminded me that the Marine Corps motto, Semper Fidelis doesn’t mean “Always Faithful” to a political party or group of people. It is higher than that. It is always faithful to your country, your faith, your values and convictions. The Marine Corps values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment require you to be true to what you know in your heart is right. Lou finished by telling me if I was a Democrat, then I needed to just acknowledge it, tell people why and move on. He and I had learned together that life is too short and precious to live any other way.

He was right. A few snarky emails and maybe a bad story in the paper are a small price for doing what you know is right. Shortly after this I tracked down a voter registration card and checked the box for the party where I belong.

My decision will make some people happy, like my Mom, a life long Democrat. Ironically it will please both local GOP and Democratic leaders. The Democratic Party Chair and many elected officials have been encouraging me to take this step for a while and the local GOP party chairman has said publicly that I should be a Democrat. Who knew I could unite them?

Despite my change in partisan affiliation, I have no animosity towards the Republican Party. I know many good people there, including friends, co-workers, and many I hold in high regard. I just owe it to them and myself to admit that I don’t belong anymore.

And I’m certainly not the first one to realize they were in a party where they didn’t belong. Prominent people, who have changed parties in the past, declared that they didn’t leave their party, their party left them. This was the case when Ronald Reagan went from being a FDR Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. It has also been true for Republicans that have changed to Democrat.

It is hard to dispute the Republican Party has changed over the last decade—in many ways the party has left me. But it is also true that during the same time I have changed as well. Our life experiences contribute greatly to how we view the world. In the last decade I went to war, became a father, governed in a period of great economic crisis and am now preparing to put two children in public school. I’ve sat with janitors who can’t afford healthcare, small business owners struggling to make ends meet, attended services for cops killed in the line of duty, met dreamers who are in the only country they have ever known and sat in classrooms with teachers doing the best they could in a tough environment. I learned a lot while confronting new information and a changing world.

That journey Emerson talked about has brought me to the Democratic Party. I’m proud to join the party and comfortable with my decision. I hope you will respect my decision and not fall into the cynicism that so often dominates our political discussions.

Either way, I will take the acceptance or criticism in stride and know that I am doing what I believe in my heart is right. I have found if you do that, you never go wrong.”

Semper Fi,

Nathan

Poof! There you have it: add water, stir, and he’s a Democrat just like that. All you need to do is make a Facebook post and you’re good. Here’s the part that he hopes you’ll forget about.

Nathan Fletcher’s Actual Voting Record

On environmental issues:F
Fletcher’s voting record is ranked at 36% by the Sierra Club and 48% by the California League of Conservation Voters (Lifetime score).

On women’s issues:F
Fletcher gets a 23% ranking from the California chapter of the National Organization of Women.

On LGBT issues:D
Fletcher gets a 29%, 54%, and 92% ranking from Equality California. Two F’s and an A give him a D.

On seniors and Social Security: D
Fletcher gets a 68% ranking from the Congress of California Seniors. His earlier scores were all F’s at 20%, 21%, and 35% but let’s give him a mercy D.

On labor:F-
Fletcher gets a 29% ranking from the California Labor Federation (note this had dropped to 18% in the latest report).

On consumer issues:F
Fletcher is ranked at 19% by the Consumer Federation.

Looking for an A? Try the Chamber of Commerce who ranks Fletcher’s voting record at 92%. He’s also up there with a 94% record with the California Taxpayers Association and a 91.5% record with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Kissing Grover Norquist’s and the anti-tax zealots’ posteriors:A

So if you are looking for a candidate who always does whatever big business and the 1% ask of him, Nathan Fletcher is your man.

What has he done for the city? In 2010 Fletcher secured a backroom deal to lift a cap on downtown San Diego redevelopment funds. This effectively transferred stable property tax revenue from schools to building projects. Privatizing profit and transferring risk to the public sounds like something out of the DeMaio playbook, but in this case, it was part of Fletcher’s game plan. You can rest assured that there will be more of this kind of “partnering” with the private sector if Fletcher becomes mayor.

Despite this dismal record, we are being asked to support Fletcher as a “Democrat” with some surely being shameless enough to call him a progressive and being given smoke and mirrors as evidence of his imagined future as our savior (Lorena Gonzalez’s endorsement coming in 3, 2, 1 . . .).

As I said in the primary, there is a technical term for this kind of argument: bullshit. And those promoting it are operating not out of idealism about his magical transformation into a Democrat but out of the worst kind of cynicism, hypocrisy, and political opportunism. They want to anoint their Manchurian candidate as mayor and there’s nothing we can do about it unless we want to hand the office to DeMaio. Thus we have to elect the handsome smiling face of the business party rather than its snarling one. So the story goes.

As I said before the last mayoral primary:

If Fletcher’s well-funded effort to morph himself into a phony independent [update: insert phony Democrat] succeeds . . . we’ll have a contest between the Dr. Evil of the local libertarian hard right and his Ken doll opponent who talks like a moderate on his insipid TV commercials but who, in reality, is the same guy who fell all over himself to genuflect to Grover Norquist and heaped fawning praise on ALEC. Put succinctly, Fletcher is a Trojan horse par excellence.

In sum, a DeMaio/Fletcher run-off is the old guard’s wet dream. They win either way. Sure the Republicans might grumble a bit if Fletcher won, but they’d get the same kind of policy, and the same cozy little private government would rule because different factions of the city elite are backing both men.

Are we really going to be this stupid or will we give a real progressive a chance to salvage something from the wreckage? We shall soon see.

Jim Miller

Jim Miller, a professor at San Diego City College, is the co-author of Under the Perfect Sun: The San Diego Tourists Never See and Better to Reign in Hell, and author of the novels Drift and Flash. His most recent novel is Last Days in Ocean Beach.

Comments

Jim, I think the office of Mayor is permanently damaged. Those who plotted the demise of Mayor Filner opened a Pandora’s Box that will not be easily closed. Now anybody can play the “Machiavellian opportunistic game”.

If three ordinary people, simply by calling a press conference, can invoke the demons necessary to bring down a Mayor, any future holder of that office will be fed to the same lions. The media knows that, like the ancient Romans, modern man still loves a blood spectacle.

It never had any innocence to begin with. Research SDs political history. It has always been blood thirsty and corrupt. We’ve not much better than Chicago in that regard. The only difference now is that in recent years its citizens have finally started to care, maybe due to the fact that they’ve finally seen the effects that corrupt politics can have on their lives.

It’s fiction but SoCal writer Mike Davis’s Negatives Nixons is a fun old San Diego politics story. It’s a story set largely in San Diego and Tijuana and revolves around a picture of Hoover in a compromising situation. I wasn’t around for 1940’s SD politics but I’d always hoped given the author’s scholarship that their were a few veiled shots at old school SD politics. I found it in an anthology titled Politics Noir.

Nathan jumped from our baseball team in San Diego, for another in North County, mid-season, because another team had a better record. He went to the playoffs with the other team and obtained a trophy. He help it high in the air as though he was a part of it from the beginning. Thought this was important. Relating to party affiliations, he is loyal to no one, and interested in his gain.

You can say that again: Nathan Fletcher was happy to be local chief of staff to Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham, darling of the local military-industrial complex, until Cunningham’s long practice of selling votes for bribes became public.
Nathan jumped ship a few months before the indictments came down and essentially denied ever knowing his boss thereafter.
Nathan Fletcher hasn’t got a principled bone in his body.

Jim, I am in some sympathy with your negativity and disillusionment but to only offer a person named Forrester, with NO record of voting and an impossible task of beating a known Republican (even though it is a non partisan office, ha ha), shows a naive and much lacking understanding of reality. And you throw around DeMaio as if he isn’t a real force to return our city to the sharks of yesteryear. Fletcher, like many others, isn’t the ideal candidate for which we might yearn, after the demise of the Kennedy brothers and others, but to add fuel to the thoughtless reason that the Democrats are not trying to do the right thing by forwarding a possible candidate who could continue the good fight that Filner was raging, does all of us progressive, and those on the right that might see the light as Fletcher finally did, a great disservice. I look to someone like you to paint a better picture of where we are and where we might be heading if the gremlins and their minions regain control of all our communal assets again. And I never want misguided and delusional religion to take center stage in our city as might happen again. I urge you to take another tack and try it again! Something positive this time with thoughtful and well reasoned information that meets today’s climate. From a progressive citizen who is ever hopeful that we (San Diego in toto) might attain status as a leader in our state for the benefit of all.

Something positive would be a progressive candidate for mayor rather than Fletcher who is clearly not one. Your suggestion that Fletcher will “continue the good fight” is what shows a”naive and much lacking understanding of reality.” What I’m doing here is calling bullshit. Those who put forth the pragmatic argument in favor of Fletcher are dressing up surrender as victory.

Well, having your bull shit based opinion is what gets us in trouble every time. I am waiting to see Forrester show a actual candidacy capable of winning (or someone else with the credentials to actually win and serve). Short of that, I suggest that we need to back, however distasteful it might seem now, someone who can actually represent me by getting elected. Just using altruistic slogans and demeaning labels as your original piece did in “magic democrat” will get us nowhere but back to the good old days of business as usual while we bemoan our lot and wait for another “savior” that is perfect. Ever try talking to Sanders, Murphy, or any of the other policy shapers at city hall while knowing it was all wasted breath? Not fun! At least Fletcher finally saw the light and came over from the dark side and will be somewhat beholding to the progressive constituents that get him elected if he makes the cut. Like it or not, it is a two party system and sitting in the dark, sucking your thumb, and crying that you are not appreciated never gets the job done. Praying to any god is also useless. The actual job of mayor is thankless and I don’t want it. Do you? If not, then I suggest we get on the bandwagon with whomever might be willing to do our bidding when it most counts. Stop relying on positions put forth by various groups that don’t like Fletcher’s OLD voting record. Today is a new day and hope springs eternal. If Fletcher isn’t the candidate who will be in the race at the end, I am ready to support the one who is. But until I see someone else capable of beating the opposition, then he seems to be the ONE, and derisive comments can only fuel the fires started and perpetuated by the Republican machine of today thus dragging us down again into the mire from which we actually had our heads somewhat above lately under Filner.

Foolish words and actions by several here will surly become an anthem that we will all regret. Stop thinking personally and take a pragmatic view of our future in which we all shall live and endure, like it or not. Better the beholding candidate we know than the one who is waiting for our misstep to pounce on the “prey” we potentially will become should we lose sight of the stakes involved.

Whom else would you suggest that can WIN? Shall we leave it to chance or see if the Republicans have seen the light and will do the right thing now? Don’t forget the history of the past from which we must learn that ambivalence and apathy leads to tyranny.

The argument as presumed to be self stating is that if “we” don’t win, we lose and it is back to business as usual where we are on the outside looking in with saddened eyes and broken hearts (and wallets). What has he done is not the question but what will he do is. Where are we if DeMaio gets back in good graces and takes control or Faulkner or any other Republican demagogue. I am not silent or star struck that Fletcher is perfect but he is a mile ahead of all other announced candidates so far and it is premature to bash him when we are just getting started. I don’t want you or anyone else to regret not taking a neutral stance right now rather than fuel and enrich the opposition’s position and perhaps furthering their chances of regaining ultimate control by strangulation of our in the past. I don’t want another Pete Wilson or Dick Murphy, etc., do you?

Dana Levy, you’re ignoring what’s been offered you as proof of Fletcher’s MadMan ego. Look at the March 10, 2012 speech to San Diego County Republicans, where he promises to “get government out of the way,” cites his position in favor of school vouchers, in which he’s proud of having been political director of the California Republican Party. Consider that when he was in the state legislature he never voted for an increase in funding for public education, and that he voted against the apportionment of state money for municipal labor projects.
Methinks you see in Nathan Fletcher someone like Ronnie Reagan, so reassuringly wholesome, and good-lookin’ to boot. A democrat, small or big d, he ain’t.

Your arguments are well taken and I hope Fletcher takes them and others to heart, has changed his poorly thought out policy positions from the past, has a different audience now, and is fresh and ready to guide the city if elected. But as time goes by please give me a viable alternative that will work for “us” if not him. The reasons you listed above are moot as to whether they would impact the CITY of SD. As mayor there is a completely different set of agendas and parameters where he could assist San Diego in moving forward. And, with the direction of the local Democratic Party and citizens who support progressive ideas, I am ever the optimist that we can move in a direction that will make us all proud. Like in all others arenas, only time will tell.

Who do you suggest to run? Frye and Atkins have already said no. In the absence of a “progressive” candidate, do you cede control to the clear right wing agenda of the Republicans by virtue of sitting out as Brent Beltran mentioned in his article? Is not a moderate for whatever side of the aisle better than a far right winger? I admit it becomes lesser of the two evils, but isn’t less better in that case? A mayor is going to be elected regardless. A low turnout election is already expected. I, for one, can’t let the ultra conservative side win in a protest that my side didn’t produce the perfect candidate.

It’s so-called progressives like yourself, Dana, that have created the settle for the lesser of two evils type situation that we are in. Why do we have to settle for a tool like Fletcher that has done absolutely nothing for our issues and causes? He never did anything for my community of Barrio Logan and he never will. Politicians like him don’t give a shit about us. Neither do most wishy washy Democratas. Instead of voting for a candidate that we can believe in we’re stuck voting against someone like DeMaio. That ain’t real democracy. That’s absurdity.

What would you be inclined to use as a description of a progressive for which you deem me “so called” so easily and capriciously? Freedom seeking for all, fairness dedicated for all, inclusionistic to all, opportunity granting for all, socially forward leaning, pragmatically deciding my future while hoping for more, etc. is what I internalize as my motivation. Give me your definition and perhaps we will have some common ground. I am thankful that the SDFP makes this forum available to create discussions and conversations to offset the UT clap trap. My opinions are as valid as all others as long as they remain well thought out and based on reason and not feelings or emotions (although I do leave room for disliking the certain dogmatic Christians, and fanatical persons of all other religions, that want to control my life based on the fictional fables of the Old Jewish Books, Koran, Buddah, and other “scriptures”). Can’t wait for a reasonable reply.

It starts with not supporting a candidate that doesn’t have a progressive bone in his body, that has never supported progressive causes and won’t even consider himself one. Start there and work your way back.

Work myself back to where? There is no back in San Diego but “backwards” and our history reeks of back door deals and back alley compacts. It is the “back” that I am asserting we need not and can not return to with out dire consequences. I suggest you get either used to the sour pill of voting for Fletcher (and/or the Democratic Party of San Diego’s endorsed choice), if he is the candidate, or get used to the much more bitter taste of DeMaio or some other Republican (that goes along with the hate filled bigotry of that party) and again get led down the primrose path towards financial ruin and social stagnation that kills dreams and stifles progress at all levels.

Sounds like you should run for office yourself. If you do, I’d advise you to give up these references to “dogmatic Christians” and “the UT claptrap.” That kind of talk can get you into trouble with the people who are pushing Nathan on us. Stick with your vague stuff like, “I internalize as my motivation… socially forward” whatever it was. That way you can fool people into voting for those principles you only seem to have.

I am still of the MALE persuasion (my mom must have had a humorous thought when naming her third son, me, Sidne being my middle name) and I am delighted that we can have these conversations that keeps the juices flowing and thoughts, although sometimes provocative, extended. My mom always told us that our (my brothers and mine) opinions are as valid as anyone else’s as long as we were prepared to defend them with reason and logic. I still hold to that ideal.

Bob – I know Dana quite well – neither you nor Brent has his number. You guys disagree on strategy. Sadly the effort put forth to heap insult on someone you do not know just because they have an opinion you disagree with is a disappointment. But yeah, I know, none of us are here to live up to any body’s expectations, not even our own. But I ask, are you really open to listening and considering the substance of the idea, even disagreeing without injecting personal insult? In the end we all must learn to talk to each other – constructively – paraphrasing Brent, start there and work your (our) way back.

For my thoughts on Jim Miller’s return to reason, see my remarks at the OB Rag today. Meanwhile, could someone please tell me: who is this Dana Levy person? Outrageously shilling here for the unspeakable Nathan Fletcher?

Maybe Levy is Democratic Central Committee chair Francine Busby in disguise or drag. Busby publicly and warmly welcomed Nathan Fletcher to the Democratic Party at the Dems’ annual gala dinner in May — long before the Filner blowup– and shunted to oblivion any mention of Filner on the program while specially honoring Christine Forrester, the person who happens to be raising money for Fletcher now.

Hi Ms Z. I am a lifelong resident of San Diego (actually born in Mercy Hospital then raised in La Mesa) until drafted into the US Army in 1966. Graduated from Helix High and then the 5 year San Diego UNION apprenticeship at City and Mesa College in plumbing and a lifelong Democrat who initially got disillusioned with Mr. Nixon and have sworn to myself and others to oppose all like people ever since. I am a shill for no one and Fletcher is not my bloodbrother, friend, or even an acquaintance. In am pro labor, pro social progressive, pro Obama, pro Brown, anti religion, anti bigotry, and a concerned citizen who is engaged and motivated. I am a male human being who wonders how anyone can dismiss an opportunity to regain some sort of control of our city politics by my suggesting a potential candidate who actually has the means and ability to win an election and do my bidding on my issues and most assuredly will listen attentively to my concerns and take these concerns into account when making policy decisions, which is not the case for any of the potential Republican backed candidates that they might entertain. I would reiterate that should a more viable candidate arise (with the same or better chance to actually win) I will, just as ardently, support them as I am trying to do now for the one who has shown an interest and filed paperwork. I look forward to your suggestion as to who else we should support for mayor and why, excluding any and all wide eyed, altruistic neophytes, who would never be electable or even be a realistic candidate for this office. Politics is rough and it does take a person who can weather the rough seas while keeping an eye on the prize. I am not disillusioned in that I can expect to get everything I want from a politician. But having a seat at the head table is way better than the alternative of being odd man out looking in and only hoping for a measly scrap befitting the loser position like “we” have had to do for way too long. I am not ashamed of being and calling myself a progressive as it doesn’t tie into the either/or roles of Liberal vs. Conservative that gets tossed around so easily by all the media outlets. Still here and plugging along, Dana

I am struggling very hard to wrap my head around the new reality of “not having the perfect being the enemy of the good.” Didn’t we just do an ideological purity purge of Filner? Sign me Confused in City Heights.

I think you’ll find that most of the posters on this board, unfortunately, don’t tolerate dissent very well, which is why you have someone having the gall to ask “who is this Dana Levy” person thinking he has a right post here. They assume anyone not toeing the line here is a troll and a shill.

I’m very skeptical about Fletcher’s credentials as a progressive — and no, I won’t be bullied by the elders who presume to tell us which words we can use — but I get your point. If elected as a Democrat, Fletcher, at least in principle, will have to answer to the left. I doubt he will in any meaningful way, and he has no voting record to suggest as much, but I understand how you might think he’s the lesser of two evils for lack of a better expression. I realize there isn’t much time before the special election, but I would love it if the pro-labor Dems would consider another possibility before shoving him down our throats.

Excuse me, Catherine, when someone suddenly appears online here at the SDFP (immediately after the ignominious dispatch of Mayor Filner) who treacly sells Nathan Fletcher as a reasonable candidate for Mayor as a Democrat, I think he/she is the one with gall.

And it is dreaming to imagine that Nathan Fletcher backed with Irwin Jacobs’ big bucks would “answer to the left.” Where would the “progressive left” be found in San Diego? And why on earth would Nathan Fletcher care anyway?

If DeMaio decides not to run, as Doug Porter suggests, we could just all come together — the GOP, Independents and “progressive”Democrats, all of whom Fletcher has serially embraced in the last year — and vote Nathan in by acclamation. No need for an icky uncivil contest.

Surely no elder needs to tell you that the lack of viable Democratic candidates is part of the unfortunate fallout from Filner’s sudden political demise and a result of years of GOP and DINO collusion.

No, certainly no one needs to tell me about the lack of good Democratic candidates for mayor in San Diego. I’ve often been annoyed that we can’t seem to find someone to challenge K-Falc in the beach communities and blame that on deal-making by labor and the Democratic machine here. But I think that’s Dana’s point. Not to assert Fletcher is some great Democrat, but that at least one who has the chance to win an election that will be here before we know it and, if only because of the D before his name, would be obliged to at least listen to concerns from the left.
It’s a sad, cynical and depressing thought, (no offense intended Dana) but I get it.

As I said, I’m doubtful that he would do any such thing or that he wouldn’t do what all our mayors (save Filner) have done, which is to prioritize the downtown development interests in this city. I heard Todd Gloria on the radio this morning and was disappointed, but not surprised, that the two big issues he mentioned at the forefront of his agenda are the new library and the Convention Center expansion. I was also disappointed that the reporter didn’t at least ask him where all this leaves Filner’s efforts at prioritizing neighborhood quality of life.

But I stand by my criticism of a tendency on this board to attack and question the bona fides of anyone with a thought or argument that doesn’t fit within the boundaries of the dialogue established by the majority.

Thanks for the well reasoned and considerate reply. I am pushing no agenda and only seek to continue the pattern of Democratic deference at City Hall, as Filner spearheaded during his short tenure, which was quite refreshing compared to our previous “strong” mayors, at least on the surface. I, in no way, suggest or support his bad behavior on the personal level and don’t want to see that happen again. I am ever confident that the desired continuation of the Democratic agenda can be perpetuated with a concerted effort on all our parts that will leave no room for backsliding into the abyss again under the tutelage of some Republican “place holder” who would return us all to mediocrity and then lead us down the old tired road toward stagnation. I will support any candidate , from our side, who shows up to fight the good fight, not shrink from any questions, and show a propensity to winning in the primary or general election. All other misguided efforts, no matter how well intentioned, will surely be wasted efforts, and their message will fall on deaf ears. I am keeping a positive mental attitude and I await the opportunity to cast my vote and/or voice my concerns in the near future.

Now you might want to admit that comparing Fletcher to Scott Walker is more that a stretch. Walker has never shown one scintilla of wavering from the dogmatic Republican agendas of God/Guns/Gays. Perhaps you’d also like to try Schwartenegger or Reagan, not!. All I’m saying is Fletcher is miles ahead of all the opposition proposed candidates and I maintain that for me give me an elected leader that will at least listen to my position and not quote “one for the Gipper” or god told him to do it or “love it or leave it”. I am in total support of anyone who can WIN and then further my interests of progressive achievements and not take the easy way out. It is at best a thankless job to cope with the challenges ahead and it will take an entire regime which must be made up of like thinking progressive people willing to fight the good fight. That is my vision for resuming the progress recently made in our fine city.

Sorry, Mike Wallace, Walker was NOT clear on his legislative agenda. The result of that was a massive recall effort, by people who felt he had not run on plans to strip unions of their bargaining rights, or huge cuts to education. And my only point is Nathan Fletcher’s epiphany of becoming a Democrat is recent, with no actions to prove his positions. He has name recognition, that’s true. So I suppose he can win. But who is quizzing him on the UT-Sanders-Jacobs agenda to see if he agrees with it? That better be clear, as I and others will not vote for someone who’s a face without content.

I grant that the agenda is a matter of opinion. To me, it was always clear. Unions are the devil in Republican eyes for the matters stated. It’s been stated nationally and it was stated in Wisconsin. What did you think a Republican in charge was going to do? That is my larger point that I am failing to make clear. The agenda of the Republicans is clear.

I agree with you, Fletcher is getting a free pass to the nomination/endorsement. However, to me, the alternative and a stated agenda contrary to Democrats, no matter where you may fall on the scale of blue, is not one that helps us.

Judith, Nathan Fletcher is Irwin Jacobs’ boy, just as Jerry Sanders is/was. Each does what they are told, while maintaining a good public face. That is NOT good for San Diegans. De Maio is the creation of the Koch Brothers and U-T’s Doug Manchester (who is now using Koch journalists as “watchdogs.”)

Who is quizzing Nathan about anything? No one. He will ace any quiz because he distorts the truth, aka he lies. He is the Manchurian candidate — looks good, huskily says whatever people need to hear, takes orders from powerful people with special interests and then executes — just like when he pushed through the midnight Sacto deal to extend downtown redevelopment. Fletcher is clever, but not intelligent; devoted to self, not the public good; empty, shallow, supremely calculating.

I am ever thankful for always living in San Diego, except while being a draftee for two years way back when, and am filled with wonder how and why people continue to live in Wisconsin, Minnesota, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, and all points North, politics aside. But the politics speak for themselves in these mentioned places along with the “Bible belt”, which has it’s own set of problems, and also loses out in weather and politics both.

Bad legislation made based on irrational public hysteria: Nathans decisions and actions for post 9-11 Wars, Chelsea King, and now Mayoral run. Fletcher panders to the lowest common denominator for power while working for the wealthiest citizen(s). A true formula of false leadership.

Please enlighten me about your choices of scenarios. I can’t seem to remember when or how Fletcher could have possibly even had any impact on the decision to go to war internationally unless he was able to channel Bush/Cheney and get them to surrender to his will. How was Chelsey King an issue to which Fletcher had an impact at all? Yes he is a politician and I wouldn’t want a novice of any type attempting to run our city, but linking bad legislation and public hysteria to Fletcher’s proposed candidacy is ludicrous. Defend your rantings with some sort of factual information and it might be worthy of digestion and contemplation. You should do better and/or try harder. Mere slogans and epitaphs won’t cut it!

Thanks John, That tragic C. King murder and the horrible media prostitution and Fletcher’s milking it for all it could be worth to him, was sickening.

You got it just right about Fletcher: “Bad legislation made based on irrational public hysteria. . . panders to the lowest common denominator for power while working for the wealthiest citizen(s). A true formula of false leadership.”

There is no winning now. That was the WHOLE POINT OF BRINGING DOWN OUR MAYOR!

I am so grateful that someone else paid horrified attention to Nathan Fletcher’s using the death of a teenager Chelsea King and her well-to-do GOP parents in his campaign advertising during the mayoral race. It was disgraceful, beyond the pale — even for San Diego.

Politics is a bloody business. If you have that many skeletons in your closet, SOMEONE is going to set them against you to their political gain. San Diego is no different in that respect.

The problem here is that fletcher has already proven that he has no loyalty and no core beliefs, so WHY would a city already reeling from the scandal of a “not as advertised” politician with more promises than product put yet ANOTHER one up?

No to fletcher. NO to progressives who want to “fundamentally transform” our city. NO. I’m tired of watching San Diego being taken over by people who want to “fix” America’s finest city.

Sorry, but I see no solution whatsoever in your musings except to give up and want hide away. Let’s give it a better try and come up with some well reasoned alternatives other than the head in the sand scenario. And you think our fair city needs no “fixing”? Where have you been? Our city continues to need transformation, and, after Filner, it is not time to quit now. We were on a path towards a brighter future and I , for one, don’t want to stop or go backwards.

Actually San Diego is pretty close to being a broken city – streets (3rd worse in the nation per the ASCE), sewers, water (average of 2-3 breaks a week) – police and fire (leaving, hard to recruit) and the most expensive public transit system in the state plus we pay the highest electric rates in the 48 states, 2/3rds more than LA. I suspect you’d agree these things need attention. In a local democracy, we must take responsibility for the politicians we select? If we don’t who does?

Fletcher for some strange reason never mentions his years of employment as in-district administrative assistant to convicted felon Rep. Randy Cunningham. Fletcher must have seen Cunningham drive his Rolls Royce, and knew Cunningham lived in a multi-million dollar Rancho Santa Fe mansion.

Yet Fletcher never asked Cunningham how he could support such a lavish lifestyle on a Congressional income.

“Nathan Fletcher– Turning a knowingly blind eye to corruption”. I can see this on campaign mailers.

Absolutely key.
Fletcher would rather we forgot he was GOP Congressman Cunningham’s local chief of staff up until a few months before indictments were made and Cunningham went to prison. It was fine for the young Marine Guardsman to be running the SD office of the darling of the military-industrial establishment until news of Cunninham selling votes for bribes hit the fan. After that, Fletcher denied “really” knowing Cunningham, who is supposed to get out of jail this month, I think.

I dunno, I’m pretty sure that Fletcher’s assembly vote on AB1500 would have gotten him excommunicated from the Cult of Norquist. Every Democrat, Fletcher as an independent, and a single GOP member of the Assembly came together to form a 2/3 majority on that tax bill, which would have increased corporate income tax revenue for the state by about $1B annually, all while making a corporate tax formula that makes California more desireable to employers

Hoping for a candidate who will vote in agreement with Every policy point of the progressive agenda will get you some seriously flawed candidates. See: Filner, Robert.

Voting for a candidate who always supports labor (or any special interest) means you have a candidate who believes that their special interest group is right all the time. Since this can’t be true (because who is right all the time?) I’m always looking for a candidate who will try to do the right thing for the greatest number of people based on the information that they have at hand.

Sometimes that will be in favor of your special interest, sometimes not. Looking for progressive purity can get you into trouble.

PS: Not sure Nathan would be a good mayor but; his LGBT champion credentials were earned with his stand on “don’t ask don’t tell”. It was a brave stand, broke with his party and was the right thing to do. Lot’s of “progressives” did not have the courage to do so when they had the platform to do something. Again see: Filner, Robert.

what is the larger and longer strategy? this mayor is in till 2016? how does the council make up change if any of the contenders are elected? is this (council make-up) even important? UT will press for its issue: $$$ to the gold old boys and downtown interests.
Can the marine stand up?

Nathan Fletcher only looks good when you put him next to Todd Gloria, Carl DeMaio, or Kevin Faulconer.

Put him next to, say, Gavin Newsom or a sack of potatoes, and he just doesn’t look good.

And Nathan, if you’re listening, governing requires a lot more than telling everyone within earshot that you were a marine. I’m not saying you shouldn’t be proud of your service, but we get it. You wore a uniform in a miserable part of the world. Only a few million other guys can make that claim.

While the author and I definitely disagree on who the best choice for Mayor would be, he is spot on that it’s nearly indefensible that Fletcher encompasses the most despicable political qualities of saying/doing anything to get elected. If you can’t see that you’re either not paying attention, or are so mesmerized by his charm that you’re not thinking clearly. This article does an outstanding job illustrating the inconsistencies of a man simply trying to reach higher office.

A political candidate who has principles (Gloria, Donna Frye, and yes Carl DeMaio) is more respectable than a candidate who is just a strategizing shell to achieve victory by saying and doing anything necessary.

I held my nose and voted for our flawed candidate, Bob Filner, and hoped for the best. It’s over folks. You can run and hide or whine about the injustice of it all or get re-engaged. Dana Levy is brave to stay engaged in this conversation. While some may state that choosing between Fletcher and Faulkner is a fool’s choice, you can’t seriously believe Faulkner would be a better choice for all the citizen’s of San Diego over Fletcher? Fletcher is “evolving”. Faulkner is a downtown, stuck in the mud,”creationist”. I still feel badly over Filner but he was an asshole on the right-side of history and his asshole side blossomed while mayor. Forget about him and don’t let “the good be the enemy of the perfect”. Only met Fletcher once during the campaign but he put Filner to shame in attentiveness and concern. He is not the Manchurian candidate… but Faulker is the Manchesterian candidate. We can’t afford to be “Tea Party Progressives”. Fletcher isn’t perfect but he sure is better than any other candidate that has any chance of winning. (And no, I’m not on his payroll.)

Oh I could not agree more about Fletcher. Vote for him….In a few weeks after being elected he will come out as the tea party person he really is. He will bring back the libertarian values he shown when he was rated an F by the Dems. Lets enjoy that thought, the dems pumping millions of their members money to a tea party libertarian..Nice nice..

Nathan Fletcher is definitely “evolving.” He is a first-class opportunist, a male “Sister Carrie,” geared to his own political advancement by any means necessary, who sociopathically changes his political affiliations to suit the latest sponsor or mentor who has taken a shine to him. In this case, it happens to be Irwin Jacobs, a very powerful Democrat with an undemocratic agenda of his own that has little to do with the regular people of San Diego.

If you believe Nathan Fletcher “is better than any other candidate that has any chance of winning,” then I cannot enlighten you further about the emptiness of his character, and why character is so important. There is absolutely no constancy there. If that is acceptable to you, there’s no point in continuing to describe the panoply of Nathan sponsors, mentors and helpmeets who have gotten him where he wants to be — in the catbird seat, easily calling himself a Democrat because Democrats now will help him move ahead. I wonder if his wife, who worked in the G.W. Bush White House, has also changed her Party registration.

If we had a born again Democrat who didn’t have to drag a wife along would that make a difference? Why is that even a topic of discussion? Union or not, labor is not who one should bash as they at do care where the money goes and what it gets us. Do you have other groups in mind who you want to denigrate or just picking an easy dependable target, just like the Reps do. I am sure the endorsements are not that easy to garner and must be earned as to what the Unions think is important. I am still hopeful that some other realistic candidate will emerge, but even Saldana can’t carry the business vote so we have to swallow the bitter pragmatic pill and get The job done. Don’t, under any circumstances, give up hope without some concrete proof/actions that validate you currently perceived doubts from the past. Time is always the great leveler and DeMaio seems to have his own problems now so it should get interesting as we creep along for the next 3 months or a few more.

“I am sure the endorsements are not that easy to garner and must be earned as to what the Unions think is important.”

It’s about power and unions back whomever they think will do their bidding. It’s not hard to get if you poll well and make promises you have no intention of keeping.

How do I know Nathan has no intention of keeping any promises made to labor unions? Just read the article; Jim nailed it when he quoted Nathan’s speech to the SDGOP:

“And as your Mayor, I’ll do the same. I’ve taken the tough positions. I opposed Proposition D, I support the Comprehensive Pension Reform, I support the ban on Project Labor Agreements, I support the outsourcing of City services. ”

I’m sure you can argue, “He was just saying to get the GOP endorsement”.

That would, of course, prove my (and the author’s) point. The man’s compass thinks that “true north” is subjective .

We seem to be speaking around in circles. I don’t know what his wife has to do with anything. The Unionized Firefighters just endorsed Fetcher for his bid. Do they have an agenda that is faulty? I, as stated previously, am not in love with Fletcher any more than you, but reality has to set in sometime and I am glad we at least have a voice from organized labor (of all types) to keep any and all politicians on the straight and narrow when they seek endorsements. No different than other citizen groups, political party endorsements, or others involved entities. Let’s see where it all settles out and then back OUR candidate as the best choice among all that are running. The primary will be the first true test and you are encouraged to ask Him all your questions and voice your concerns to Him just like I plan to do. That will enlighten all of us and we can then continue this discussion or a new one that should keep us engaged.